This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: [PATCH] Fix newly exposed bug [was RE: RFC: Fix partial NaN-parsing problem [was RE: sscanf problem]]
- From: "Dave Korn" <dave dot korn at artimi dot com>
- To: "'Jeff Johnston'" <jjohnstn at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "'Jean-Christophe Kablitz'" <jckablitz at infonie dot fr>, <cygwin at cygwin dot com>, <newlib at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 19:41:04 +0100
- Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix newly exposed bug [was RE: RFC: Fix partial NaN-parsing problem [was RE: sscanf problem]]
>From: Jeff Johnston
>Sent: 28 April 2005 19:33
> Hi Dave,
> Thanks for looking into this. Your patch wasn't quite correct. It
> ended up breaking nan-support which isn't tested in the accompanying
> testcase. It needed to verify that x & multiple_flags_ored_together ==
> multiple_flags_ored_together. Anyway, I have checked a patch in and
> verified that it works for your tests below plus it also works for a
> simple test like
> i = sscanf ("nank", "%lf%c%n", &x, &m, &n)
> -- Jeff J.
Heh, actually we probably have to talk about that. The k should IIUIC be
swallowed by the %lf and the %c should fail; this is the production
described as NAN(n-char-sequence opt) in the C language spec, strtod
documentation (that's 184.108.40.206.3 in WG14/N843 draft, I don't have the final
version). And we haven't even mentioned the lack of INF support yet :)
However I'm on UK time, so it won't be happening today!
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html